Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

stick n move said:
Once they realized they couldnt build they should have sold it to someone who could. In most situations it would be whatever, but they have the last air rights in copley square... ever. Thats what changes things.

That or transfer the air rights to the hancock garage development which is just across the street, that could work too and doesnt have as tricky construction. If the state can rescind the air rights and put them up for sale for the immediate surrounding plots that would be good, as it sits now its ridiculous.

Click to expand...

You have answered your own question. The simple fact that is the last air right parcel in copley makes it more valuable, value that will rise over time. As one of the largest REITs in the country, they can, and should for their investors, wait until they need the capital, so long as that air rights agreement remains valid. Without knowing exactly what that agreement states, this is just a sim city conversation.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Speaking of Zuma, I brought this up many pages back, but Zuma is on the outer end of ridiculous expensive. What is the over/under on this lasting more than a year.
Not that people in Boston don't have money to spend, it is just not Boston's style.

The one is NYC is over the top, very expensive and generally busy, but no one I know has been there more than once, if at all. It's a models and bottles, flashy place.

Hotel guests, some condo residents, Mandarin Oriental guests, maybe birthday/anniversary/special occasions - is that enough to keep this place afloat?
Click to expand...

I'll say, my friend ate and drank $600+ worth of food and alcohol but was comped by a friend who works there. I need better connections.
 
You may be right. Those high end places in the seaport seem to be busy, so maybe this will work as well. At least it is not another "....Prime Steak / ....Prime Seafood" national chain.

BosDevelop said:
I just looked at the Zuma menu and don't see much of a difference in prices between Zuma and places like Oishii in the South End, O Ya etc. i.e. places that have loyal followings and have been around a LONG time. Pabu, while much newer, also has similar prices in the same genre. If we can support 20 high end steak places downtown, I think 4 or 5 high end sushi/Japanese places can make it work.
Click to expand...
 
HalcyonEra said:
You have answered your own question. The simple fact that is the last air right parcel in copley makes it more valuable, value that will rise over time. As one of the largest REITs in the country, they can, and should for their investors, wait until they need the capital, so long as that air rights agreement remains valid. Without knowing exactly what that agreement states, this is just a sim city conversation.
Click to expand...

So unfortunately thats 100% wrong. It doesnt remain valid... Thats literally the ENTIRE point. It expires in a couple years then its gone. Just like south station tower has a deadline as well. Thats literally why its a big deal, because they have the last copley sq air rights and theyre just sitting on it until it expires...
 
stick n move said:
So unfortunately thats 100% wrong. It doesnt remain valid... Thats literally the ENTIRE point. It expires in a couple years then its gone. Just like south station tower has a deadline as well. Thats literally why its a big deal, because they have the last copley sq air rights and theyre just sitting on it until it expires...
Click to expand...

Yes, this design was grandfathered in before the new, more stringent shadow laws took effect. I think it was approved for 10 years so I'm not sure how much of that time has elapsed. After that we won't be able to go tall here anymore, because God forbid a sweeping shadow hits one of the parks early morning in January..... The city really blew its load on the Winthrop Square tower, which itself was disappointingly cut back.

That's also part of the disappointment with 1 Dalton. It was in a unique position where it could have gone even taller, and Walsh even asked them to, albeit too late in the process. I would STILL like to see some sort of crown, preferably a triangle shaped top hat. It could probably handle that with the existing foundation. Even something like the below treatment (the ORIGINAL proposal for the Moscow Tower), or a toned town BOA cage crown in Atlanta, could work, although I'd rather see 3 flat glass sides meet each other in a point (imagine the spiky glass right under the crown on the below pic, only longer, and leaning inward).

Capture by David Z, on Flickr
 
DZH22 said:
Yes, this design was grandfathered in before the new, more stringent shadow laws took effect. I think it was approved for 10 years so I'm not sure how much of that time has elapsed. After that we won't be able to go tall here anymore, because God forbid a sweeping shadow hits one of the parks early morning in January..... The city really blew its load on the Winthrop Square tower, which itself was disappointingly cut back.
Click to expand...

It didn't get cut back though - everyone knew what the FAA limit was.
 
bakgwailo said:
It didn't get cut back though - everyone knew what the FAA limit was.
Click to expand...
Here let me explain...

It was proposed at 775’... yes well over the FAA limit and we all knew that was going to be cut back, in fact at the time it appeared that they knew too but were only trying to get “scaled back” to the FAA max. So massport comes back and say nope all you get is 725’ so everything was going according to plan and it looks like a major win right? 725’ thats great for downtown...

That is until the new scaled back design comes out and it was scaled back too far. They cut back to well below the FAA limit. Its being built to 691’ when the FAA said they were allowing it to go to 725’. Thats what people are talking about when they say height was left on the table for seemingly no reason and the ball was dropped. So instead of a 725’ tower that stands out as downtowns new tallest, its now only a couple feet taller that MP and its place on the skyline actually makes it look shorter than MP from most of the important skyline angles and also well shorter than 1IP on the waterfront skyline.

Bisnow article about the FAA situation
https://www.bisnow.com/boston/news/mixed-use/not-so-tall-after-all-proposed-winthrop-square-tower-drops-75-feet-78991

Final approved project and height after a couple design changes
http://www.bldup.com/projects/115-winthrop-square
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
Here let me explain...

It was proposed at 775’... yes well over the FAA limit and we all knew that was going to be cut back, in fact at the time it appeared that they knew too but were only trying to get “scaled back” to the FAA max. So Massport comes back and says, "no all you get is more like 710'..... and--if you want to go a bit taller--you'll have to sponsor a study and wait a few months for us to get back to you......" [/URL]
Click to expand...

Your numbers off slightly (fixed). But yeah, the idea was to go 725' all along. Cut down to the nearest floor that would fit Massport's regime rendered 702'.... Next, the 'parks are dying' people argued for even more height reduction. Result: 1 additional floor came off resulting in the result we have now. So, in the final analysis, it lost a floor or 2.

I'm pissed they took off unnecessary height off the East Tower. Should have gone maybe ~625-640'.

In any case, thank Christ the project is finally u/c.....
 
Its in the link

“Its 775-foot design exceeded the 710 to 725 feet recommended for the site on Massport’s airspace map.”

But regardless, the tower as it stands now at 691’, is even shorter than they were allowed to go here. On the same parcel where Menino’s 1000 footer was rendered (thats all it was ever gonna be) is crazy. This is universally known as the site where downtowns tallest will be built and they got 710’ and only took 691’... wtf. Its not even about height fetishism its that its place behind MT on the skyline and only being a couple feet taller makes it look either the same height or slightly shorter from most angles. Plus from the waterfront view its barely able to be seen and much shorter than 1IP.

See




Anyways we can continue this in the 115 fed thread if needed... otherwise lets get back to 1 dalton and its light up christmas tree. Will Boston get its shining beacon of christmas spirit for all to see 750 feet up or will the old guard/nimbys prevent us from taking this next step into world class-dom? Stay tuned...
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but you guys are squabbling over 30 feet. You really think 3 floors would have made the difference, would have really broken the plateau? From the ground you can't tell and from far away I'd contend that the difference has a minimal effect. We pretty much all like height here but this is not the hill to die on.
 
Its still a great building/project even at the reduced height.

But....downtown really does need a peak.
 
JSic said:
But....downtown really does need a peak.
Click to expand...

The Back Bay needs a peak too now that they have essentially created a plateau there as well. Something without a flat top would be nice.

Frankly, since the Boston skyline has always looked "stupid" from an actual skyline perspective, we might as well continue that by plopping a new tallest out by North Station. I always figured it would be a given that I'd see a new tallest in my lifetime. Now that I'm 37 and realize the constraints the city is dealing with, I think that 1 Dalton was one of the last chances for that to happen.

I no longer expect to see a new tallest in my lifetime, and actually wouldn't be surprised if 30-35 US cities have passed the Hancock by the time I croak. Detroit is next, Austin is threatening, and other short(ish) term possibilities include Denver, Nashville, Milwaukee, and Portland (OR). In Canada, we just got jumped by Calgary and Edmonton, and Quebec City has a 900' proposal. To the South, Mexico City and Monterrey just passed us. It's sad but Boston will always be a plateau, and a new tallest will never be considered "appropriate" anywhere in the city. Even if 100 US cities build taller than the Hancock, any 500'+ proposal will continue to be met with "we aren't NYC."

I think I am just disappointed because I have seen this building from most of my different viewpoints and it just doesn't have the overall effect on the skyline I was hoping it would. Don't get me wrong because I still LOVE 1 Dalton, but building to the exact height of the Pru next door continues the dumb decisions that keep holding back the skyline as a whole. We don't just need a new peak downtown. We need a new peak, period.
 
^Maybe Cambridge will build a 1000' like they were saying, lol.
 
DZH22 said:
The Back Bay needs a peak too now that they have essentially created a plateau there as well. Something without a flat top would be nice.

Frankly, since the Boston skyline has always looked "stupid" from an actual skyline perspective, we might as well continue that by plopping a new tallest out by North Station. I always figured it would be a given that I'd see a new tallest in my lifetime. Now that I'm 37 and realize the constraints the city is dealing with, I think that 1 Dalton was one of the last chances for that to happen.

I no longer expect to see a new tallest in my lifetime, and actually wouldn't be surprised if 30-35 US cities have passed the Hancock by the time I croak. Detroit is next, Austin is threatening, and other short(ish) term possibilities include Denver, Nashville, Milwaukee, and Portland (OR). In Canada, we just got jumped by Calgary and Edmonton, and Quebec City has a 900' proposal. To the South, Mexico City and Monterrey just passed us. It's sad but Boston will always be a plateau, and a new tallest will never be considered "appropriate" anywhere in the city. Even if 100 US cities build taller than the Hancock, any 500'+ proposal will continue to be met with "we aren't NYC."

I think I am just disappointed because I have seen this building from most of my different viewpoints and it just doesn't have the overall effect on the skyline I was hoping it would. Don't get me wrong because I still LOVE 1 Dalton, but building to the exact height of the Pru next door continues the dumb decisions that keep holding back the skyline as a whole. We don't just need a new peak downtown. We need a new peak, period.
Click to expand...

Meh.

I would take a highly urban, pedestrianized streetscape with top-quality infill, exciting street retail and as-close-to-100% preservation of pre-WWII historic architecture as possible over an 800-foot building that's tall for the sake of being tall any day.
 
You guys think 1 dalton being taller would have made the skyline better? I think if anything, that plot that its on now works best at anywhere from its current height to a little bit shorter to allow the skyline to slope away. Maybe now that 1000 boylston and a few more shorter towers are being built that will create a slope, maybe it would have worked out fine being taller. Idk. Its not though...

I think its perfect as is imo. I think the copley or hancock garage site may have been a better spot to break the plateau. The centrality of the copley westin between the pru and jht, probably would be the best possible site for a new tallest out of all places, but theres no room in that general area. Regardless, as it stands now looks great with 1000 boylston added. The most pressing issue for the back bay skyline is the gap where copley tower would have went. 40 trinity and the hancock garage towers should help it out a bit, and even more so if the hancock garage tower is able to acquire copley towers air rights that arent being used. Idk why not... fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:
Sure it would have been nice for One Dalton to go higher but lets not make the perfect the enemy of the good. The city managed to get its tallest tower built in 40+ years with relatively little opposition and the usual NIMBY BS. Now that's in no small measure to the unique ownership of the site (tough to extort a church that also owns the parcel free and clear). However, it could be a blueprint to go higher. In this cycle we've seen two building go up to FAA height limits downtown, and a 3rd building go taller than even that. A good sign for a potential future next tallest especially given the economics are getting more favorable (increasing demand for space).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top